DVD Talk review of 'The Da Vinci Code'
 

I read Eric D. Snider's DVD review of The Da Vinci Code at http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=21777 and...
Before you even start with the movie you close your mind, because Ron Howard is the director, you waste my time with a review, because your bias is showing...get over yourself.

He just registered...and when reading a review there is a link to starting a thread and discussing it.

Give the new guy a break... :)

I agree with the original poster. It's rare a review puts me off from the very first paragraph, but this one did it. Usually I enjoy Snider's reviews even when I don't agree with them, but I think he was too biased against the book to be fair and useful in this one. It read like something you would find at someone's blog.

Nah, I think the first paragraph sums up Dan Brown pretty well.

I am not bothered if some people don't like the book. I enjoyed it a lot, but don't think it is the best book ever written either. I just think that starting the review lecturing people about the quality of the book in such a fashion renders your review of the movie pretty much null and void. However, to the reviewer's credit, I guess he did pretty much scream out his bias right away, so I knew not to take the review seriously.

I agree, I think there is a difference between saying "I didn't like the book" and "The Da Vinci Code is not a great book."

In the original post...I would add that I heartily agree.

The reviewer in this case is totally lost and biased from the beginning.

Why? I hated the book. I thought it was horrible, like Robert Ludlum trying to write like Umberto Eco and failing miserably. Yet, I'm unbothered by your fondness for it.

Excuse the writer for actually being familiar with the material the movie is based on and stating his opinions of it. I guess the review should only be written by someone that loved the book or has never read it? We are talking about a movie that is an adaptation of the biggest selling novel of at least the last 30 years, it seems pretty fair for the reviewer to mention his feelings about the source material before getting into his reactions to the film. The comments about the film seemed plenty fair enough, and I do not get any feeling at all that he went into the movie with a predisposition to hate it.

If the reviewer had loved the book and then gave the movie high marks, would that mean he was biased towards liking it?

If they started their review with, "We need to be clear on something first: "The Da Vinci Code" is a great book," as if they just settled the matter right there for all of us, I would immediately doubt them as a reviewer, yes.

Oops, I meant to say "not bothered." I edited my post to fix that.

That first paragraph of the review also put me off.

It just screams "I'm so sophisticated in my taste of movies, cuisine, and much more"

I just want to add that "qua" is not actually a word in French. He might have meant to write "quoi." :shrug: But I guess that's pretty trivial compared to the rest of the complaints.

If the reviewer can not like the movie...I can post that I believe his review is biased and "lost" in nature.

This reviewer did not appear to go into the movie with even a hint of "I'll give this movie a chance, even though I didn't like the book". This is not a balanced review in the sense that good reviewers, even though they may not have liked written the written subject matter, give movie versions their due.

This reviewer will not be taking up any more of my time with their reviews if thats the way they're going to review things. I'll find reviewers that are initially fair and impartial when they review movies.

amen.

Since I believe the reviewer is right about both the book and the director, I don't see any bias whatsoever. "Fun and a quick read" describes the book perfectly. This isn't litterature, it's a popcorn book for the masses. And "generically competent" also describes Ron Howard perfectly. Howard is a competent director, but don't look for imagination, originality, or inventiveness in the use of the cinematic language when he's' involved.

I would have changed this to: "While it's unlikely that a movie version of "The Da Vinci Code" would be brilliant cinema, we could at least have expected a well crafted and entertaining piece of summer fluff. Saddly, it mostly fails to even manage that.

I still think he was biased from the beginning and this isn't a good review.

A reviewer has to be nuetral...at least a good one. Even if he didn't like the book he should have at least have given the movie its due...instead of stating immediately that the book wasn't good.

I stand by my statement that this review is biased and out of touch.

It seems that the only biased opinions are coming from the people that are quick to dismiss the entire review simply because he states that the book is not a masterpiece, while ignoring the context of that statement. In fact he never even says that it is a bad book or that he disliked it, but rather is pointing out that he felt it was a silly yet fun pageturner type story (like something one might read at the beach), and in contrast the film approaches the material in an overly straight faced manner and thus lacks any of the appeal that made the book so popular in the first place.

And had he actually written it out like Bugg just did, the review wouldn't have seemed so hopelessly biased and, for lack of a better word, snotty.

I do enjoy most of Snider's reviews though. They are usually amusing and informative. I didn't fully agree with him on the movie, but his Tristan + Isolde review was really fun to read and made me laugh - in a good way.

:whofart: How are you supposed to be "nuetral" and still state your subjective opinion of a film? It's impossible to suppress one's personal views and tastes in writing a review.

In all fairness, did you people even bother to read what he wrote? Sure,the dude's biased, but it's against Howard and Goldsman...not the book.

It makes a lot more sense now. :up:

<--never read the book

<--considered the movie a "take it or leave it" proposition; mostly seeing it because it has Tom Hanks, who's almost always dependable, and it is the lastest new summer release

<--loved it; thought it was really impressive and well worth the media attention

The guy liked the book. As NatrlBornThrllr pointed out, he calls himself a fan.

If anything, I think he was generous in his description of Dan Brown's prose.

I think it's completely appropriate for him to state his opinion of the book before giving us his opinion of the movie (what a review is, after all). It's useful to know where he's coming from in order to gauge his opinion against one's own.

It's just a shame that the opening-weekend grosses all that matters to the ones who have the power to decide whether or not more movies like The DaVinci Code are made.

Would anyone disagree that making $244 million in three days makes a film critic-proof?

This will be available at Target as a 3 disc edition, with a 90 minute "Beyond the Da Vinci Code" documentary and a foil cover.